Fluid v. Static

A static belief system is a comforting thing. The pursuit of a static belief system seems to be the aim of many fundamentalists. This type of system is clean, neat and fits well on Sunday mornings. The difficulty arises when one tries to overlay this static system onto modern life. When questions or ambiguities are brought forward, one's choices are to deny, disregard or criticize. This system is easy to explain and easier to lead another to belief, provided they not ask too many questions. The alternative is a fluid system where the endpoint is not a static position but a continuation of fluidity. This system requires engagement. Thought and study are required. It allows for an easier overlay on daily life but can be difficult to communicate due to its desired ambiguity. Unfortunately, a common byproduct can be elitism. Those that subscribe to a static belief system often do so out of laziness or disinterest. Those who thoughtfully consider other views and challenge their own ideas decide that those who subscribe to a static theory "just don't get it". Interestingly, to hold the view that any static theory is inherently wrong, is in itself a static position. One of the most difficult positions to take is the fact that those who try to move towards a more static system may be right. This at least has to be considered. Basic tenets are necessary. Establishing a statically fluid belief may be the goal instead of branding either the fluid or static model wrong. A belief that is grounded in basic personal tenets that incorporate various fluid views radiating from the core belief may be one way to try to address problem of the lack of basis for the fluid view. The question is how does one construct and establish this core belief? When does one question this core belief?